Latest revision as of 12:24, 15 July 2012

Contents

One of the main concerns users had with the wallet was that new entries weren't saved immediately (bug #105752). Before actually getting to work and coding a workaround (appending new passwords to the file without reencrypting all of it or creating a second file where new passwords are appended) I benchmarked the existing encryption to check the actual overhead that would be incurred by saving to the kwl file as soon as passwords were entered.

I benchmarked on a Q6600. As the encrypting code is single-threaded, only one core (2.4GHz) is being used. Please bear in mind that I didn't bother to run the test several times as the results are pretty clear - unfortunately this makes some of the numbers seem a little weird.

I assume that your usual wallet will contain less than 1000 entries. Due to the fact that any workaround would have to encrypt at least 1 entry (~ 8ms) this workaround would save around 15ms - 8ms = 7ms. This is clearly insignificant. Big overhead for syncing the wallet seems to be a myth.